Ricky shoot around comments to media

[LoPo]

That's simply not true though lol. Mitchell made the offense look good for the most part because he went absolutely nuclear shooting wise during that stretch, he did a pretty poor job of running the offense for the most part but made the Jazz' offense go because he was making a ton of shots.

Mitchell got a 10 game sample size and we won almost every game. Last time I checked, there was probably zero off-season preparation for Mitchell at PG since we had 3 on the roster.

I concede that our offense runs better with Rubio. However, I find it damn impressive that our team did so well with our 2nd year SG having to run PG for such a long stretch.

Give him a good chunk of the off-season prepping for that role, and my bet is that our offense with Mitchell looks as good as with Rubio.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

You can’t just look at DM with just Ricky On/Off... Joe and Rudy are our most impactful guys in on/off metrics... much of the DM on and Ricky off playing time also includes joe and Rudy on the bench.

Basketball reference isn’t letting me look right now but the 5 man lineup of the DM, Royce, joe, Jae, Rudy is a ridiculous +39 per 100 minutes... the sample size is limited for sure.

Ricky has value but I’m telling you DM is more point guard than off guard and putting more length and shooting around him will benefit us. It isn’t just about offense. I think he’s more effective guarding 1s. I know wingspan is long... he’s still kinda undersized... at 1 he’s big.

I like Ricky but I’d rather go a different direction in the offseason. I’d rather have an inferior player you can play off the bench if the lineup data suggests it will help the team. I think he helps us against lesser teams but to hit our ultimate ceiling DM plays point and his primary backcourt mate needs to be a better shooter who can play defense... playmaking would be great but not necessary.

 

[RRJazz]

Mitchell got a 10 game sample size and we won almost every game. Last time I checked, there was probably zero off-season preparation for Mitchell at PG since we had 3 on the roster.

I concede that our offense runs better with Rubio. However, I find it damn impressive that our team did so well with our 2nd year SG having to run PG for such a long stretch.

Give him a good chunk of the off-season prepping for that role, and my bet is that our offense with Mitchell looks as good as with Rubio.

Sent from my VS995 using JazzFanz mobile app

Mitchell got a 6 game sample size at starting PG:
vs Bulls (13-44), Cavs (12-45), Magic (26-32), Pistons (26-29), Clippers (31-27), and Lakers (6-12 without Lebron). Total 114-189 .376

Those comments come right after a loss @ Golden State (41-15) .732

I give up.

 

[NAOS]

I ran the impact stats for Mitchell vs Rubio and dated it from Jan 8th (Rubio injury) to now here, and advanced metrics here - some points about things that interested me but feel free to check the stats yourselves.

- Mitchell has shot the 3 better with Rubio on the floor vs when he's off, but Mitchell has a slightly higher TS% with Rubio off the floor.
- The Jazz' offense is significantly better with Rubio on the floor vs when he's off. A common misconception during the Mitchell at PG stint is that the offense improved when in reality the offense kinda got worse except for Mitchell's individual offense which obviously was at an all star level during that stretch, but the defense was significantly better during that stretch. I would argue that's more to do with the schedule at that time than any defensive deficiencies that Rubio might have, but the Jazz DRTG with Rubio on/Mitchell off might suggest otherwise.
- To add further to the last point, the Jazz as a team are significantly more efficient with Rubio/Mitchell on the floor vs when Mitchell is on but Rubio is off. All of the other starters + Crowder and O'Neale get more inefficient when you take Rubio off the floor but leave Mitchell on, Favors in particular suffers badly going from a 59.7TS% to a 49.8TS%.
- Mitchell becomes more ball dominant/ball stopping and chucks more with Rubio on the floor going off AST%s vs when he's off, which is something I think Mitchell could do a better job of when playing next to another playmaker. He doesn't need to ball stop just because Rubio is in the lineup to playmaker.
- The Jazz' ORTG with Mitchell on the court and Rubio off is actually worse than the Jazz' ORTG with Rubio on and Mitchell off since January 8th. The Mitchell on/Rubio off Net Rating is higher because the Jazz have been significantly better defensively in those minutes, whereas they've been kinda bad defensively with Rubio on/Mitchell off (another stat that suggests the "offense is better with Mitchell at the point" narrative is a myth).

Is it surprising that the dumbasses around here have already forgotten (conveniently) the strength of schedule during Rubio’s absence?

No

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Is it surprising that the dumbasses around here have already forgotten (conveniently) the strength of schedule during Rubio’s absence?

No

And that is an issue... we need to see it against stronger competition. I felt prior to that run against terrible teams that DM is more pg than not... that helped push me in that direction... but I’d like to see it more.

I just think ultimately our ideal lineup (next year) is:

DM
joe
Insert wing who can shoot and play defense
Crowder or Royce or big FA upgrade like Tobias
Rudy

The pgs we talk about aren’t ideal fits to me. Conley is an upgrade but leaves us super small. I think defensively it will be an upgrade and offensively.

Say we land Bullock or Danny Green with a FA forward or just throw Royce or Crowder at the 4 full time. I think that lineup is fire... would be better to get some ball handling but adding a high level pg (that wants the ball) to Joe and DM is a little bit of overkill and emphasizes the wrong aspects of what the starting group really needs.

We are likely getting a flawed player (if they can create shoot and play great defense they are likely out of our price range... that’s basically like Bradley Beal) I think it is easier to find a 3 and D type, which will help DM be a better playmaker and give the pick and roll more space.

We need some bench creation (Exum could help) but I think we can find that too.

 

[NAOS]

And that is an issue... we need to see it against stronger competition. I felt prior to that run against terrible teams that DM is more pg than not... that helped push me in that direction... but I’d like to see it more.

I just think ultimately our ideal lineup (next year) is:

DM
joe
Insert wing who can shoot and play defense
Crowder or Royce or big FA upgrade like Tobias
Rudy

The pgs we talk about aren’t ideal fits to me. Conley is an upgrade but leaves us super small. I think defensively it will be an upgrade and offensively.

Say we land Bullock or Danny Green with a FA forward or just throw Royce or Crowder at the 4 full time. I think that lineup is fire... would be better to get some ball handling but adding a high level pg (that wants the ball) to Joe and DM is a little bit of overkill and emphasizes the wrong aspects of what the starting group really needs.

We are likely getting a flawed player (if they can create shoot and play great defense they are likely out of our price range... that’s basically like Bradley Beal) I think it is easier to find a 3 and D type, which will help DM be a better playmaker and give the pick and roll more space.

We need some bench creation (Exum could help) but I think we can find that too.

I don’t disagree with this at all. You make your case well; and I think this is likely the best and most efficient (asset-wise) way to improve.

I disagree with the idiots who throw Ricky under the bus with the dumbest arguments I’ve read on this board since Carlos Arroyo. In fact, maybe even worse than those.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

I don’t disagree with this at all. You make your case well; and I think this is likely the best and most efficient (asset-wise) way to improve.

I disagree with the idiots who throw Ricky under the bus with the dumbest arguments I’ve read on this board since Carlos Arroyo. In fact, maybe even worse than those.

He's an easy target because of his obvious (some nights) flaws.

Here is the lineup data... all per 100 possessions

DM/Royce/Ingles/Crowder/Rudy is +39.7 (57 min sample)... sub Ricky for Royce and +11
DM/Royce/Ingles/Favs/Rudy is +16.9 (small sample)... sub Ricky for Royce +2.5

There is also a Ricky/Dm/Ingles/Crowder/Favs that is +25

THE issue in my mind is we refuse to acknowledge the obvious flaws of some lineup construction and commit to lineup types that are more effective. We won't trade good for great because we scared AF that change would hurt us. This isn't exclusively a Ricky problem... The issue is we end up discarding both Ricky and Favs... and there is a chance one of them was probably worth keeping. We need to run these lineups out more to get a bigger sample and isolate the real issues... but we kill 5-6 bottom feeders and go "this is fine". It may not work... but I think we are at the point where we need to experiment some.

Continuity, consistency, and chemistry are great... but can turn to stagnation and complacency.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

OK, so how were Mitchell's numbers with the rest of the starters but no Rubio? Most of those numbers are from playing with the second unit as the PG. Mitchell was definitely much better as the PG when Rubio was injured. His efficiency plummeted once Rubio returned

Clearly Mitchell was riding a hot streak. It's impossible to say the causation was the lack of Rubio unless you think Mitchell magically becomes a 45%+ 3pt shooter if Rubio is gone (clearly none of the data backs that up).

And yes, when you fix for only Mitchell playing with the other 3 main starters (Favors/Gobert/Ingles) and no Rubio (also did no Neto/Exum since you said as PG and primary handler) the numbers are much better. It's also a small sample of 58 minutes. Also keep in mind the bulk of these minutes came against a stretch of playing some of the worst defensive teams in the NBA (Cavs, Clippers, Bulls, Knicks and Lakers made up 5 of the 8 non-Rubio games this year).

58 minutes
eFG: 60%
TS: 66%
Usage 34.7%
PPP: 1.2
PPS: 1.3

Team Offensive Rating: 117

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

And that is an issue... we need to see it against stronger competition. I felt prior to that run against terrible teams that DM is more pg than not... that helped push me in that direction... but I’d like to see it more.

I just think ultimately our ideal lineup (next year) is:

DM
joe
Insert wing who can shoot and play defense
Crowder or Royce or big FA upgrade like Tobias
Rudy

The pgs we talk about aren’t ideal fits to me. Conley is an upgrade but leaves us super small. I think defensively it will be an upgrade and offensively.

Say we land Bullock or Danny Green with a FA forward or just throw Royce or Crowder at the 4 full time. I think that lineup is fire... would be better to get some ball handling but adding a high level pg (that wants the ball) to Joe and DM is a little bit of overkill and emphasizes the wrong aspects of what the starting group really needs.

We are likely getting a flawed player (if they can create shoot and play great defense they are likely out of our price range... that’s basically like Bradley Beal) I think it is easier to find a 3 and D type, which will help DM be a better playmaker and give the pick and roll more space.

We need some bench creation (Exum could help) but I think we can find that too.

Without Rubio Mitchell's usage is way too ****ing high. That's not a good recipe for sustainability in performance or health.

If the Jazz are going Mitchell at PG you need another high usage guard/forward, not a Bullock/Green (though I'd love either of them).

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Without Rubio Mitchell's usage is way too ****ing high. That's not a good recipe for sustainability in performance or health.

If the Jazz are going Mitchell at PG you need another high usage guard/forward, not a Bullock/Green (though I'd love either of them).

Lots of good teams have high usage guys. That would be the starting unit and you mix in other lineups with more creation. Whether Ricky is out there or not creation is primarily on Donovan and Joe. I think DM would have a better chance making plays and being more efficient with a willing sniper out there on the wing.

We need some playmaking from the 4 or other wing, but to have a guy who doesn't have much value on offense unless he has the ball isn't ideal either... I think having a shooter like green or bullock is the lesser of two evils. I think Royce could do some playmaking if guarded by a 4 and attacking closeouts.

Could have a more traditional pg off the bench or Exum needs to provide the playmaking to mix in. If Dante could shoot 35%+ from three and we committed to a shooting 4 that could work too.

I'm not sure usage hurts health... I think minutes are a much bigger issue. Even if he is handling the ball he doesn't have to attack down hill every possession. Ricky's combo of poor shooting, being unable to finish, and high turnover rate is pretty detrimental at times. So is Favs lack of spacing... sticking with that combo so long is just perplexing. I understood re-signing Favs to see if his shooting improved or to use him as a big contract in a trade... but now? He should come off the bench. Prolly not what was sold to him though.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Lots of good teams have high usage guys. That would be the starting unit and you mix in other lineups with more creation. Whether Ricky is out there or not creation is primarily on Donovan and Joe. I think DM would have a better chance making plays and being more efficient with a willing sniper out there on the wing.

We need some playmaking from the 4 or other wing, but to have a guy who doesn't have much value on offense unless he has the ball isn't ideal either... I think having a shooter like green or bullock is the lesser of two evils. I think Royce could do some playmaking if guarded by a 4 and attacking closeouts.

Could have a more traditional pg off the bench or Exum needs to provide the playmaking to mix in. If Dante could shoot 35%+ from three and we committed to a shooting 4 that could work too.

I'm not sure usage hurts health... I think minutes are a much bigger issue. Even if he is handling the ball he doesn't have to attack down hill every possession. Ricky's combo of poor shooting, being unable to finish, and high turnover rate is pretty detrimental at times. So is Favs lack of spacing... sticking with that combo so long is just perplexing. I understood re-signing Favs to see if his shooting improved or to use him as a big contract in a trade... but now? He should come off the bench. Prolly not what was sold to him though.

Nah. The Jazz have to get another high usage starter. It's not even a debate IMO. It doesnt have to be a PG, but it has to be a guy who can dribble and create a shot for themselves and others. Like at the very least a Jeremy Lamb, not a Bullock/Green.

Unless you're getting Klay Thompson, you cant start next season with Mitchell at PG surrounded by a bunch of guys who are just shooters and Gobert.

 

[LoPo]

Mitchell got a 6 game sample size at starting PG:
vs Bulls (13-44), Cavs (12-45), Magic (26-32), Pistons (26-29), Clippers (31-27), and Lakers (6-12 without Lebron). Total 114-189 .376

Those comments come right after a loss @ Golden State (41-15) .732

I give up.

6 games which makes it even more silly. So you are saying that we definitely need to start Rubio because our offense runs better with him. Rubio has been a starting PG for the better part of 14 years. Mitchell started 6 games.

The fact that there is even a conversation tells me that I'm encouraged about Mitchell's potential at the position long term.

If we lost Rudy, Favors and Udoh then Niang had to start at center for 6 games yet we won almost all of them and our numbers were pretty close to the same, we would all be like holy **** good job Niang. Maybe we can rely on him at that position more than we anticipated.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

6 games which makes it even more silly. So you are saying that we definitely need to start Rubio because our offense runs better with him. Rubio has been a starting PG for the better part of 14 years. Mitchell started 6 games.

The fact that there is even a conversation tells me that I'm encouraged about Mitchell's potential at the position long term.

If we lost Rudy, Favors and Udoh then Niang had to start at center for 6 games yet we won almost all of them and our numbers were pretty close to the same, we would all be like holy **** good job Niang. Maybe we can rely on him at that position more than we anticipated.

Terrible analogy.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Nah. The Jazz have to get another high usage starter. It's not even a debate IMO. It doesnt have to be a PG, but it has to be a guy who can dribble and create a shot for themselves and others. Like at the very least a Jeremy Lamb, not a Bullock/Green.

I think you could have a Bullock/Green and bring a guy like Lamb or a pg creator off the bench. I think we are probably close to the same page. I am of the opinion that we need shooting and defense primarily and creation would be great... players that have all that are hard to get. So if you can settle and get something get the shooting and defense. I also think getting a guy like Kemba would make us too small and you get diminishing returns. I think you can mix another high usage guy in the top 6-7 players, but doesn't have to be a starter.

 

[fishonjazz]

Nah. The Jazz have to get another high usage starter. It's not even a debate IMO. It doesnt have to be a PG, but it has to be a guy who can dribble and create a shot for themselves and others. Like at the very least a Jeremy Lamb, not a Bullock/Green.

Unless you're getting Klay Thompson, you cant start next season with Mitchell at PG surrounded by a bunch of guys who are just shooters and Gobert.

Could also be that Mitchell is just a 2nd year player and the conclusions you are making about him now could be invalid as he develops and his game changes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[JAZZGASM]

Could also be that Mitchell is just a 2nd year player and the conclusions you are making about him now could be invalid as he develops and his game changes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Agreed. But he still has a ton of room to improve. He slows down the offense and takes a lot of early shots. I also expect him to improve faster if he gets more playing time (and coaching). As much as I hate Snyder's offense, one advantage is you don't need a prototypical PG. I think Donovan can develop enough to take that role, and will provide him more advantageous mismatches with his length vs forcing him to guard taller 2 guards. I think a backcourt of Donovan and Exum can be much more beneficial on both ends. I'd rather have the ball in either of their hands at this point, and I say that as someone who appreciates and likes Rubio.

And IMO, Rubio had a poor showing last night. Missed some defensive assignments and didn't fight over some screens he could have. He also missed two point blank layups. I'm sure he is still fighting some nagging hamstring issues. The break will likely do everyone some good.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I think you could have a Bullock/Green and bring a guy like Lamb or a pg creator off the bench. I think we are probably close to the same page. I am of the opinion that we need shooting and defense primarily and creation would be great... players that have all that are hard to get. So if you can settle and get something get the shooting and defense. I also think getting a guy like Kemba would make us too small and you get diminishing returns. I think you can mix another high usage guy in the top 6-7 players, but doesn't have to be a starter.

I don't think we are. I'm extremely hardline in that there has to be a starter who is above 20% usage and operates comfortably in that role.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

One thing that advanced statistics cannot show is what the Jazz would be like if Mitchell ran the point with another impact guard playing next to him. Mitchell has the ability to run the point--making reads and moving the ball--as well as say Damian Lillard or Russel Westbrook. If the Jazz had a solid, 2-way guard who could create his own shot, score better than Ricky and also defend at least as well as Ricky, that would probably be a more effective guard rotation than what we have now.

I think a line-up with Mitchell at PG and even a middling SG like Tim Hardaway Jr. could be more potent than what we have now.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Could also be that Mitchell is just a 2nd year player and the conclusions you are making about him now could be invalid as he develops and his game changes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

What the duck are you talking about?

Please point me to the superstar who wins, not even championships, just regularly advances in the playoffs, without having a strong secondary ball handler.

You can't do it unless your prime Lebron or Harden, and their teams/themselves where eventually like "**** I need to play next to another high usage player".

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

One thing that advanced statistics cannot show is what the Jazz would be like if Mitchell ran the point with another impact guard playing next to him. Mitchell has the ability to run the point--making reads and moving the ball--as well as say Damian Lillard or Russel Westbrook. If the Jazz had a solid, 2-way guard who could create his own shot, score better than Ricky and also defend at least as well as Ricky, that would probably be a more effective guard rotation than what we have now.

I think a line-up with Mitchell at PG and even a middling SG like Tim Hardaway Jr. could be more potent than what we have now.

THJ would be worse than Rubio. He is a 6th man at best on a playoff team.